Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano on Monday underscored the importance of distinguishing original evidence from third-party copies amid growing public attention surrounding the so-called “Cabral files” circulating on social media.

“The Office emphasizes that soft copies of documents held by third parties, especially those in the format of Word or Excel, inherently lose evidentiary credibility as they are susceptible to alteration, incomplete context, or manipulation,” Clavano said.

Clavano said Leandro Leviste, Batangas First District representative, had earlier presented the supposed Cabral files before the death of former Department of Public Works and Highways official Catalina Cabral, but clarified that only portions were shown.

“During this engagement, Congressman Leviste presented only limited portions of the list responsive, in fairness, to specific inquiries, but he did not present the entire set of files he claimed to possess even when asked to do so,” Clavano said.

“This will differ from the Congressman’s public statements suggesting that the full Cabral Files had already been shown to or reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman.”

Leviste has recently drawn public attention after posting on social media photos of documents he claims were sourced from Cabral and the Department of Public Works and Highways following the approval of his request by Secretary Vince Dizon.

The files include documents related to the controversial DPWH 2025 budget, particularly “allocables” and “outside allocables per district,” which reportedly ballooned to P1.041 trillion. In various interviews, Leviste said the Office of the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) could confirm the authenticity of the files he posted.

Hours after Clavano released his video statement, Leviste responded on Facebook, disputing the claim that he failed to present the entire set of files during his meeting with Ombudsman investigators.

According to Leviste, he presented both the DPWH budget summary and an Excel spreadsheet of the 2025 National Expenditure Program to the Ombudsman team on 26 November, but said the discussion centered on alleged projects linked to another lawmaker.

“I invited the team of the team Ombudsman to go through the file further, but they did not seem too interested: Their questions to me during our meeting were more about projects linked to Congressman Edwin Gardiola,” Leviste said.

“I was the one showing them the file which I said would be helpful for all their investigations, and the team was more focused on their assignment to build a case on Congressman Gardiola,” he added.

Leviste also said he invited Ombudsman officials to return for a follow-up meeting to further review the documents.

“We invited them to come back another time but they did not get back to us after this meeting. The meeting was actually initially postponed, but in fact I asked that we keep it on the scheduled date, because I wanted to help the Ombudsman’s investigations as much as I could,” he said.

Addressing Clavano’s concerns over third-party documents, Leviste suggested a public comparison of the files he holds with those reportedly obtained by Ping Lacson, Senate President Pro Tempore.

“I believe the simple solution would be to compare, in public, if the files that I have are the same as the ones that are reportedly in the possession of Senate President Pro Tempore Ping Lacson,” Leviste said.

Lacson earlier said the documents in his possession came from Cabral’s lawyer and the DPWH, and could be authenticated by the Department of Budget and Management or DPWH.

Following Cabral’s death, the Ombudsman directed DPWH to turn over files and a computer previously used by the former undersecretary. On 23 December, the DPWH delivered the files and CPU to the Ombudsman, which Clavano said were sealed pending digital forensic examination.

“As an update, the Office is preparing to conduct a Digital Forensic Examination of the CPU of the former USEC. This will be done transparently and in coordination with the Commission on Audit, COA, the DPWH, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group to ensure the integrity of the whole process,” Clavano said.

Clavano also emphasized that the alleged budget insertions cited in the files are not automatically illegal.

“Alleged insertions that are supposedly in these files still need to be carefully examined to determine whether these projects were actually implemented or if they turned out to be gross projects. An insertion by itself is not automatically illegal. It will only become criminal if it is proven to involve fraud, misuse of public funds, or non-existent projects,” he said.

Meanwhile, Leviste called on agencies involved in flood control investigations to disclose any relationships or potential conflicts of interest with individuals under probe, citing the need for transparency.